this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
165 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

774 readers
512 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ourtimewillcome@hexbear.net 46 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

sadly, i've seen similar sentiment among an unfortunate number of western leftists. the anti-jewish portion of the nazi genocide, despite not even constituting the majority of their crimes, is portrayed as an evil in its own league.

other things, even ones with higher casualty numbers and perpetrated by the same scum, may perhaps be compared to the shoah but never allowed to reach it in terms of cultural significance in the west.

the slavic or romani victims or the political prisoners who suffered the same or even worse abuses in the same camps by the same fascist parasites don't get to be immortalized in western literature or film or music or other arts.

despite the fact, that racism against slavic peoples was (read: is) at the very core of hitlerite ideology, westerners never as much as acknowledge it. instead, they celebrate as thousands, if not millions of slavic people die in a conflict caused by western capital. instead of at least feeling shame for flooding all of those countries with blood, they instead have been spreading hatred and harmful stereotypes to such an extent that they don't even register doing it anymore. i don't even want to mention their hideous lies about the red army.

despite the fact, that the hitlerites successfully exterminated essentially all of the romani population throughout much of western and central europe and came dangerously close to reaching this goal in eastern europe, anti-romani racism seems now to be just as common as life itself.

how come that the suffering of jews is considered the crime of crimes, while everything else the fascists did gets either ignored, excused away or even celebrated?

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 2 days ago

how come that the suffering of jews is considered the crime of crimes, while everything else the fascists did gets either ignored, excused away or even celebrated?

Because the western (and mainly American) bourgeoisie had enough Jews and sympathy for Jews. Not only was this the case before the war, but after the war, there was also the Zionist project to benefit from. Were these factors not present, modern westerners wouldn't give a fuck about the 6 million dead Jews either. They'd only focus on the American/European soldiers who died, the same way they treat conflict in west Asia today.

[–] CTHlurker@hexbear.net 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I've also noticed what you're saying, and it feels so odd to me, because I was definitely raised with the explanation that the Nazis were bad because of their crimes against the Jews, but also that Europe mostly cares about that specific crime because jews are considered European (which is a whole other brainworm in it-self, but I don't want to argue every stupid thing my parents believed). My dad was also way more anticommunist than my mom, so he still thinks that Stalin was way worse than Hitler, or at best, equivalent. My dad also grew up in Apartheid South Africa, which means he used to believe a lot of stupid shit about history.

[–] ourtimewillcome@hexbear.net 22 points 2 days ago

my personal theory is that this new philosemitism among fascists arose because of the nakba. right wingers mostly ignore the difference between the jewish people and israel, and when they saw the settler colony committing genocide, their reaction was something like, "oh my god, they're one of us!"

also, really happy to see you being more based than your family! gives me hope for the country im in right now.

[–] MayoPete@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

There's some sort of theistic discrimination going on where people place followers of a religion above other groups. Like believing in some God makes you better than everyone else? I don't get it.

Maybe I need to calvinball a religion if my own so I get the special rights and protections these people have. God forbid we treat people equally

[–] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 67 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I'm not Jewish. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I am not Jewish. Then they came for the Jews, and there was no one left to speak out for them.

Makes me wonder why they'd make such a shitty, repetitious poem if there's nothing to learn from it

[–] TheLastHero@hexbear.net 25 points 1 day ago

Zionist can fuck off today, the sacrifice of the Soviet people will never be forgotten

[–] footfaults@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 1 day ago

Jewish supremacy ideology includes erasing anyone else who was mass murdered

[–] aanes_appreciator@hexbear.net 31 points 2 days ago

This is the shit that infuriates me. It's driven by a strictly fascist ideology that is designed to reintegrate Naziism into the public consciousness whilst cordoning off a little garden labelled "judaism✨ :)" to afford itself freedom from associative guilt.

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 44 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You know when I learned the extent that trans people were murdered too during the Holocaust (and then that I was trans), it deepened my reverence and empathy for all the victims of the Nazis. Suffering is not something diluted by the inclusion of other victims.

Just like now as I face genuine persecution, I feel immense empathy and solidarity with other targeted groups, like refugees, Palestinians, First Nations etc

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 68 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

all victims of the Second World War

People generally separate the Holocaust from "all victims" of the second World War already, but it shows how cowardly these people are that they don't mention the fact that when people say "Holocaust" they generally mean "the millions of civilians mass murdered with industrial processes within the borders of Nazi-controlled territory", which includes many millions of people who were not Jews. Instead they try to skip over these Holocaust victims and jump straight to everyone who died in the war, a definition that nobody is using.

compare it to contemporary events

Oh so I guess "never again" means "this will never happen again, don't worry about it, don't think about it". Eat my ass.

[–] sewer_rat_420@hexbear.net 76 points 2 days ago

This Holocaust Remembrance Day, please join us in a special form of Holocaust denialism.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 64 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Jews were the plurality of who was killed, but they were not the majority. To erase the broad spectrum of the other 8 million people killed during the Holocaust is to erase an aspect of Nazi ideology and it's desire to totally remake European society into it's imagine of German dominance.

[–] Hermes@hexbear.net 32 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Jews were the plurality of who was killed

Weren't Slavic peoples killed under generalplan ost the largest group of fatalities?

[–] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 28 points 2 days ago

Again, it is how you are splitting up and dividing casualties. If you are focusing on the death camps in particular (a distinction they are implying in the original post, by trying to claim the opposite is "all victims of WW2"), there were Roma, Communists/Socialists, LGBTQ, some Soviet POWs, and other "undesirables". But, yes, there were a lot of massacres of Slavic people that the Nazis carried out.

[–] Frivolous_Beatnik@hexbear.net 31 points 2 days ago (2 children)

By 2-3x iirc, though I've seen people claim those were "military casualties" and that they don't count

[–] Hermes@hexbear.net 34 points 2 days ago

It's only Holocaust if it comes from the Holocaust region of Germany, otherwise it's just sparkling genocide

[–] Andrzej3K@hexbear.net 25 points 2 days ago

Hmm I mean the all gets a bit complicated doesn't it. I think it's fair to limit the definition of Holocaust to the camps, in which case the victims were majority slav and also majority jewish because these are not exclusive categories. The civilian/military casualties in eastern Europe were huge ofc, and this is because it was ultimately a war of extermination, unlike the western theatre which mainly involved western Europeans surrendering to each other.

Generalplan Ost is under-discussed, and the erasure of non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust has a lot to answer for (not least in Poland), but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Jews were the prime target of the nazi regime. The plan to exterminate most of eastern Europe and enslave the remnants was what they expected to be able to do once they got the Jews out of the way — but they believed the Jews had to be eliminated first

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago

I hadn't actually considered that, but yes, Slavs would be the actual plurality (and I believe general majority) of who was killed.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 61 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The real kicker is that bit about “contemporary comparisons” which makes me ask why even bother having historical educations if you can’t apply the lessons of the past but that’s just me

[–] red_giant@hexbear.net 37 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also it’s a tacit admission that certain current events are indeed comparable, especially since they don’t need to be named for you to know exactly what they mean

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

“my don’t compare historical events shirt is causing people to compare the historical events”

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We don't even need to make comparisons, is the thing. We can just look at their methods and laws, and plainly see that they are creating concentration camps, and using military actions that overwhelmingly target civilians.

The contemporary mass graves speak for themselves. Historical comparison at this point can only invite people to see where the differences are, holding them to account for what their actions are right now should be enough.

I suppose now is a good time to recommend Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 44 points 2 days ago

Be me, a non-Jewish survivor of a Nazi death camp

"Any attempt to dilute the holocaust, strip it of its Jewish specificity, or compare it to contemporary events is unacceptable on any day"

Thanks, guess I'll just dump myself in the trash

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 42 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Zionists want the word to only be about jews because if jews started including memory of others in holocaust memory then Israelis might become less fucking awful, and jews elsewhere in the world might become less likely to be racist zionists.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 42 points 2 days ago

The end result is asserting a special ethnic privilege over the definition of genocide so they can minimize the one they're perpetrating, which sure is something agony-deep

[–] anotherspinelessdem@lemmy.ml 39 points 2 days ago

6 million Poles were killed too, it's just that there's a 3 million overlap (Polish Jews) and there were more Poles to start with. And that's not even getting into the Romani, LGBT, Disabled, and anyone to the left of a modern Statesian Democrat. At least 12 million murdered in an industrial fashion. And that's all before getting into the war dead.

Fun fact, bit of tension between Israel and Poland about all that too.

[–] Speaker@hexbear.net 42 points 2 days ago

If you acknowledge other Holocaust victims people might expect you to defend or improve their lives somehow.

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S 39 points 2 days ago

On Holocaust Memorial Day, it is especially hurtful, disrespectful and wrong.

Okay thanks for telling me, now I know the best time to say that to you Zionist fucks 😆

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 34 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

It is correct in terms of how people have used and still use the word that the Holocaust refers specifically to the 6 million Jews who were murdered and not to the other victims of genocide and the war. There strangely isn't an all-encompassing term for all the genocide that the Nazis did afaik, though you can refer to some of the different subsections of it with various names like Aktion T4 (the "euthanasia" campaigns against the disabled and mentally ill), and Generalplan Ost sometimes gets used as a shorthand for the genocide on the eastern front.

Edit: I do agree that the phrasing of this message at least suggests reinforcing an idea of Holocaust exceptionalism, the idea that the Holocaust was a unique evil that it's improper to compare other genocides to, which is obviously an extremely backwards and chauvinist attitude that is harmful to the whole of human civilization.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I've heard it suggested that "Shoah" be used to refer to the genocide of Jews specifically, and Holocaust for the general project of Nazi genocide.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 13 points 2 days ago

Usually, at least in an American context, the argument is that applying "Holocaust" to the killing of Jews is offensive because the word basically means "burnt offering", so "Shoah" (Hebrew for "catastrophy") should be the name instead of "Holocaust".

I agree with that, but I don't think it's a pressing issue and we're already talking about an institute that emphatically uses the older term, if you're wondering why I didn't mention it.

[–] commieradcat@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The Holocaust has direct links to Judaism.

Richard of Devizes a 12th century monk was the first person to use the word in regards to mass killings, and it was to describe Richard I's killing of Jews in London in 1189.

Genocide is the all encompassing term.

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 27 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Maybe this is regional, but I feel like I've always heard some variation of "the Holocaust was when the Nazis killed 11 million people, 6 million of whom were Jews" as the standard definition throughout my life, making it specific to the industrialized mass murder but not specific to the Jewish victims.

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's how I was taught in Australia.

Also writers like Mike Davis ("Late Victorian Holocausts") often use the term to refer to a genocide event broadly.

Finkelstein separates the Nazi Holocaust (the genocide committed by the Nazis against Jews, Poles, Roma, etc), holocaust (a general term) and Holocaust (the public perception of the Nazi Holocaust as if it was the only genocide to ever occur and focused solely against Jews)

[–] SootySootySoot@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I've also always used to it to refer to all the victims. It makes little sense otherwise because why would people deliberately exclude the genocide of other groups also when condemning Nazis? The history of the terminology seems to be that meaning is mixed from place to place.

I guess to be clear I have to not use the term holocaust when I want to mean "The industrialised mass murder of 11 million people as part of a systematic extermination campaign". Bit more of a mouthful though.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Seconded, I think in LatAm this is how I've heard it be discussed generally.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

That was my American public school experience - and at a very Jewish public school, at that.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's interesting. I guess it probably is regional then.

Edit: I agree with your other comment about the dishonest rhetoric of this institute, though.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There strangely isn't an all-encompassing term for all the genocide that the Nazis did afaik

I think you could argue that genocide is the generalised word that was created for that. It was created in 1944.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 13 points 2 days ago

The term genocide was coined to describe what the Nazis did, but that's different from their overall genocidal project having an individual name in the way that the Holocaust is a specific name for their killing of Jews.

[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 23 points 2 days ago